Who is childish and silly?

A recent letter from Gerald and Dolores Maxey called Chief Supreme Court Justice John Roberts’ decision to allow his fellow justices to not attend the Presidential State of the Union (SOTU) address “childish and silly”. Childish and silly may be apt descriptors, but not of Roberts.

First, Roberts made no such decision. Justices have always made their own decision whether to attend or not. In fact, when six justices attended the last SOTU address, it was the first time since 1999 that a majority of justices showed. No more than two justices attended each of President Bush’s first four SOTU speeches. In each of his last three, only four justices attended.

This shouldn’t be too surprising since the SOTU address is based on the constitutional requirement that the president “shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient.” This event involves Congress and the president, not the Supreme Court.

Reasons for not attending range from schedule conflicts to health issues to personal preference. As Justice Clarence Thomas explained when asked why he has only attended one SOTU address in the last decade, the speech has grown increasingly partisan. One side of the aisle responds with wild enthusiasm while the other sits somberly. Thomas questions whether his attendance as an impartial jurist is appropriate in the midst of such partisan behavior.

This concern over partisan behavior proved prescient in President Obama’s last SOTU when he crossed a line and rudely attacked the Supreme Court’s Citizen’s United decision while the justices sat in attendance. Not only was the attack disrespectful, it was blatantly wrong.

Obama accused the Court of overturning a century of precedent but he exaggerated by about 80 years. In Citizen’s United, the Court overturned a confusing decision from 1990. Also, Obama claimed the decision opens the floodgates for foreign involvement in U.S. elections. Once again, wrong. Existing bans on foreign nationals and corporations continue contrary to Obama’s recent campaign rhetoric on the issue. Even the NY Times called Obama out on this rhetoric just a few weeks ago.

Another incorrect accusation states the decision declared corporations as individuals, but the ruling did no such thing. The concept of “corporate person-hood” has been recognized as common law for centuries and constitutionally since the 1880s.

The Roberts’ court ruling rests firmly on nearly 220 years of precedent - the First Amendment’s clear and unambiguous declaration that “Congress shall make no law. . . abridging the freedom of speech.” Whether that speech comes from an individual or a group of individuals is irrelevant.

[Letter to the Editor - Farmington Observer. Published 11/11/2010.]